October 31, 2014

"Justice Department investigators have all but concluded they do not have a strong enough case to bring civil rights charges against Darren Wilson..."

"... the white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., law enforcement officials said."

38 comments:

rhhardin said...

Too much exculpatory evidence to spin.

AJ Lynch said...

I figure Eric Holder will announce this on Monday to incite outrage among the race hustlers and sabotage and undermine our ordinarily peaceful day of voting.

Rae said...

October surprise incoming.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Bring back Crack!

Drago said...

I'll wait for ARMeltdown to identify an appropriate black person for commentary on this apparently imminent decision.

Drago said...

Oh, and duh.

Terry said...

There was no racism! This is terrible!

YoungHegelian said...

Just think of how much fun it must have been for the DoJ employee who got to tell Holder that the civil rights case against Officer Wilson wasn't going to fly.

I bet Holder & his immediate subordinates must have been frothing at the mouth after they heard the news.

It be interesting to see how the story of "black attorney general of black president can't/won't charge white cop who shot unarmed black kid." Will it be seen by the black community as a failure of the Obama administration itself? Or, will it be seen by them in a more conspiratorial light, as further evidence that, no matter what position of power blacks seem to hold, it's white people who pull all the strings?

theribbonguy said...

Neighborhood on fire in 5-4-3...

richard mcenroe said...

This is the Democrat DOJ in Democrat Washington DC. Just because you have no case is no reason not to empanel a grand jury...

Hagar said...

This article is all cotton candy with no stick in the center.

The Drill SGT said...

The instant it became clear that Brown had wrestled for the gun inside the car and been shot there, any hope of a Federal case was toast. One could find him guilty of some state level crime for firing an excessive 6th shot, but they were not going to be able to find the requisite intent to show he was guilty of a Federal civil rights crime...e.g. because prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer intended to violate someone’s constitutional rights.

James Pawlak said...

Look up "Tueller Drill"!

Steve Uhr said...

They should go public with their decision before the state grand jury returns its expected no-bill. Might deter some people from rioting, etc.

Paul said...

"Justice Department investigators have all but concluded they do not have a strong enough case to bring civil rights charges against Darren Wilson the white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., law enforcement officials said."

But that never stopped them before, why now?

RecChief said...

Let the riots begin!! anew.

Scientific Socialist said...

The opera ain't over 'til the fat lady sings-just give the Feds time, they're sure to find something. If the Michael Brown deal doesn't pan out, maybe they'll get Wilson on being cruel to animals or using his cop car to bring stuff home from the supermarket.

Anonymous said...

What? No lynching?

Gahrie said...

What struck me most about the article was the failure to even entertain the idea that it was a justified shooting. The basic assumption was that Wilson should be lynched, but he might get off because of an overabundance of caution in the Justice Department.

richard mcenroe said...

What I find interesting is Holder/Obama's assumption that this race baiting will stir up the black community to vote but not the white community being villified.

Achilles said...

Steve Uhr said...
"They should go public with their decision before the state grand jury returns its expected no-bill. Might deter some people from rioting, etc."

The funny part is that people think the Obama administration doesn't want more riots and racial strife.

virgil xenophon said...

@Achilles/

^^^THIS!!!

Larry J said...

I question the timing of this article.

tim in vermont said...

"Do not have a strong enough case" sounds like "He's guilty, we just can't prove it" rather than the more likely, he acted in self defense when in fear for his life.

damikesc said...

The narrative is out there. Truth has no chance.

Bruce Hayden said...

I too question the timing, esp after someone leaked that Zimmerman might be indicted by the feds came out a day or so earlier, both w/I days of the election. Both unarmed men appear to have done stuff that could have earned them an unremarked early death if not for the racial angle. No matter how badly the Black community and the progressives in our midst try to delegitimize these shootings, the reality in both cases, most likely, is that the decedents put their killers in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, thus legally justifying their deaths. Not kind, but reality - we cannot afford, as a society to allow the most violent in our midsts to practice this level of violence upon the rest of society. Imagine a society where a Darren Wilson couldn't protect himself against a guy almost twice his size who had already tried to take his gun away from him, just because his assailant was Black and misunderstood (or, in reality, well understood, but never domesticated to live in our ordered society).

campy said...

"What I find interesting is Holder/Obama's assumption that this race baiting will stir up the black community to vote but not the white community being villified."

What "white community"?

April Apple said...

A police officer killed a person who committed armed robbery then disobeyed a simple command to get out of the street, then came after the police officer and attempted to grab his gun. (and also assaulted the officer with his fists)

The color of the skin doesn't matter. Sadly, the hacktastic corrupt unprofessional tribalistic media, skin color identification is all that matters.

Bruce Hayden said...

The fact that Brown was initially shot with his arm in the police vehicle makes it very likely that the shooting was justified. And, yes, we pretty much know this from the forensic evidence of Wilson's weapon being discharged twice inside the vehicle, the very close proximity of Brown's hand to the gun at the time of those discharges, and Brown's blood on the inside of the vehicle and on Wilson. That sort of assault on a police officer is a violent major felony, and elevates Brown's arrest to the level where deadly force can be utilized, above and beyond Wilson's self defense claim.

(As for the arrest - MO law allows for deadly force to be used in arrests for violent felonies. It is constrained by the US Supreme Court for instances where the person being arrested constitutes an immediate danger to society, and trying to grab a cops gun probably puts Brown in that category)

Ignorance is Bliss said...

April Apple said...

A police officer killed a person who committed armed robbery...

Not armed robbery. Strong-arm robbery. No weapon involved.

Not that the store-owner was any less threatened or robbed.

Kelly said...

They knew from day one what took place between Wilson and Brown. They knew there wouldn't be civil rights charges brought because no civil rights were violated. This was all for show, to get the black base riled up for the election. Damn, and here I hate conspiracy theories yet I believe in one.

C R Krieger said...

What Tim from over in Vermont said.

We don't have the "Not Proven" option.  Prosecutors shouldn't play in this cess pool.

Regards  —  Cliff

traditionalguy said...

But Wilson cannot prove that he is not white, can he?

That is the charge: Deliberate wearing a police uniform while white with the intent to confront an innocent black man, in the first degree.

Big Mike said...

I agree with every word in Kelly's comment.

Birches said...

What struck me most about the article was the failure to even entertain the idea that it was a justified shooting. The basic assumption was that Wilson should be lynched, but he might get off because of an overabundance of caution in the Justice Department.


That's exactly what I thought when I read the article. Too much passive voice and vague references to the autopsy reports.

eddie willers said...

Look up "Tueller Drill"!

This most recent season of Justified teased this scenario all season long with a bad guy just itching to show that he could gut a shooter if he was within 21 feet.

The chance finally came one night, but as rushed he didn't notice the hole in the ground.

He fell and the knife promptly went through his mouth and into his brain.

(It was funnier on the screen than in this recap)

Bruce Hayden said...

In regards to the Tueller Drill - no absolutely clear the distance at which Wilson shot Brown. I have heard both the 21 but also 35 feet (but apparently that is probably less than half again the time it takes to do the 21 feet). Need more of the forensic evidence.

Bruce Hayden said...

Not armed robbery. Strong-arm robbery. No weapon involved.

Under MO law, the difference is that armed robbery is a class A felony, while strong armed robbery is a class B felony. Also, armed robbery is classified as a violent felony for sentence enhancement.

The interesting thing to me about MO criminal law here is that Brown may have committed a number of class B felonies, but probably no class A felonies. Both the 2nd degree assault on a police officer and attempted murder (when Brown went for the gun) are Class B felonies. The penalty for class B felonies, if I remember correctly, is 5-15 years. So, rationally, maybe the attack on Wilson for his gun was rational, since sentences would probably be served concurrently, and Brown was already on the hook for the 5-15 when he attacked Wilson.